JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-3-1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Sagar, in Special Case No. 1/98, convicting the appellant under Section 8/20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity "Act") and thereby sentencing him to suffer two years' RI and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine further SI for 6 months. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that an information was received from the informant that one person near Agga Tiraha is carrying with him Ganja, which is kept in his suitcase. On receiving the information, Sub Divisional Officer, Shri. R.L. Rathore with other police staff arrived at the spot and in presence of witnesses Rustam Khan and Maqbool Khan inquired from that person. On being asked that person told his name to be Govind Soni and he also gave his consent to take his search. It is further the case of prosecution that the appellant told that key of the suitcase has been misplaced. Thereafter, the suitcase was got opened in which the Ganja was found. The Ganja was seized in presence of witnesses and on weighing it was found to be 2.5 kg. Thereafter, 50 grams contraband article was taken out from the bulk and it was scaled and thereafter it was sent for chemical examination. After receiving the report of Chemical Examiner affirming the report of presence of Ganja in the sample, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 3. Learned Trial Court framed the charge under Section 8/20 of the Act, which the appellant denied and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution thereafter examined its witnesses but accused did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence although his defence is of false implication. 5. Learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant under Section 8/20 of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. 6. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. I have heard Shri. Dwivedi, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and perused the record. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. 6. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. I have heard Shri. Dwivedi, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and perused the record. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. On bare perusal of the seizure memo (Exh. P-1), dated 8-12-1997, this Court finds that nowhere it has been mentioned that substance, which has been seized is having flowering or fruiting tops. However, the seized substance which was sent for chemical examination and when the sealed packet was opened by Chemical Examiner it was found that seized substance was containing flowering and fruiting tops. If the seizure memo of the alleged contraband article (Exh. P-1) is tallied with the sealed packet received by the Chemical Examiner, it appears that the substance which was seized at the spot was not sent to the Chemical Examiner, but, altogether a different substance was sent. Because in the seizure memo (Exh. P-1) nowhere it has been mentioned that contraband article which has been seized is having flowering or fruiting tops although in the sealed packet which was received by Chemical Examiner contraband article was containing flowering and fruiting tops. This Court has failed to digest this fact that if the seized substance was not having flowering or fruiting tops, have in the sealed packet the flowering and fruiting tops have come out from that substance. Thus, it raises heavy doubt that the substance which was seized by seizure memo (Exh. P-1) is the same article which was received by the Chemical Examiner. 10. The seizure memo of alleged contraband article (Exh. P-1) has been prepared not by an illiterate or ordinary person but by Senior Sub-Divisional Officer of Police having well knowledge about the provisions of the Act. Had there been flowering and fruiting tops in the contraband article, which was seized at the spot on 8-12-1997 (Exh. P-1) definitely it would have been so mentioned in the seizure memo and, therefore, it raises heavy doubt about the implication of the appellant in the said offence and it is not proved that the substance which was kept in the packet and which was received by Chemical Examiner who after examining it, found Ganja in it, was the same substance which was seized vide Exh. P-1. 11. P-1. 11. The definition of Ganja has been mentioned under Section 2 (iii) (b) of the Act reads thus: 2. (iii) (b) Ganja, that is the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated. 12. If the definition of Ganja is tallied with the alleged contraband article, which was seized at the spot vide Exh. P-1, dated 8-12-1997 this Court finds that it does not tally with the definition of Ganja. Hence, it is not proved that appellant was possessing the contraband article Ganja for which he has been prosecuted. 13. Apart from this, on bare perusal of seizure memo of contraband article (Exh. P-1), this Court finds that same was seized on 8-12-1997. However or going through the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh. P-11), this Court finds that it was received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 22-12-1997. Thus, for 14 days where the contraband article was lying and in which condition there is no evidence on record and the prosecute on was obliged to adduce evidence in this regard. No explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer that why it was sent after 14 days from the date of seizure. 14. In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 526 , the Supreme Court has held that inordinate delay in sending empty cartridge for examination of ballistic expert raises doubt. In the case of Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 2960 , there was a delay of five days in sending the article to the ballistic expert, but it was held by Supreme Court that there was no justifiable reason why delay had occurred and, therefore, the case of the prosecution has become weaken. In the present case also, the alleged contraband article was seized on 8-12-1997 and was received by Chemical Examiner on 22-12-1997 as this date of appearing from the report of Chemical Analyst (Exh. P-11), hence the possibility of changing the substance contain in it cannot be ruled out. Hence, I am of the view that conviction of appellate is bad in law and is hereby set aside. 15. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. P-11), hence the possibility of changing the substance contain in it cannot be ruled out. Hence, I am of the view that conviction of appellate is bad in law and is hereby set aside. 15. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 8/20 (b) of the Act. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. The amount of fine, if recovered, may be returned to appellant.